Why We Still Change the Clocks Twice a Year

Twice a year, millions of people across Britain perform one of the most familiar rituals of modern life. We change the clocks.

In spring, we move them forward an hour and welcome the prospect of lighter evenings. In autumn, we turn them back again, supposedly gaining an extra hour in bed while accepting that darkness will soon arrive before many of us have finished work.

It is a routine so familiar that most of us barely question it. We change the time on the oven, the car clock, the clock on the wall and that one alarm clock in the spare bedroom that nobody has used since about 2007. Our phones and computers usually sort themselves out, leaving us to argue over whether we have gained or lost an hour.

But have you ever stopped to wonder why we still do it?

In an age when we can video-call someone on the other side of the world, have groceries delivered within hours and ask a smart speaker to tell us the weather, changing the clocks twice a year can feel like a surprisingly old-fashioned arrangement.

So why does Britain still follow the system, and is there any realistic chance that we might one day stop?

When did Britain start changing the clocks?

The idea of changing the clocks to make better use of daylight has a surprisingly long history, although it took a while to become government policy.

One of the best-known early advocates was William Willett, an English builder who became convinced that Britain was wasting valuable daylight during the summer months. In 1907, he published a pamphlet called The Waste of Daylight, arguing that clocks should be moved forward during the summer so that people could enjoy more daylight in the evenings.

Willett’s proposal was influenced by his observations of early-morning daylight and the amount of time people spent indoors or asleep while the sun was shining. He believed that shifting the clocks would encourage people to make better use of the longer days.

His campaign attracted attention, but it did not immediately persuade the government to act. The idea remained controversial, with practical objections and questions about how it would affect different industries and daily routines.

Willett died in 1915, before seeing the system he had championed become law.

The First World War changed the situation. Germany introduced daylight saving in 1916, partly to conserve fuel by reducing the need for artificial lighting. Britain followed later that year, introducing British Summer Time as a wartime measure.

What had once seemed an unusual proposal became an established part of British life.

What actually happens when we change the clocks?

The principle is straightforward. In spring, clocks move forward by one hour, shifting an hour of daylight from the morning towards the evening according to the clock.

In autumn, clocks move back by one hour, returning to standard time.

In the UK, the change to British Summer Time takes place on the last Sunday in March. The clocks go forward from 1am to 2am. On the last Sunday in October, they return from 2am to 1am, bringing us back to Greenwich Mean Time.

The autumn change means that, on paper, we get an extra hour that day. The spring change means that one hour disappears from the night.

Of course, the sun does not actually change its behaviour. The Earth’s rotation and its orbit around the Sun continue exactly as before. We are simply changing the labels we put on the hours to alter how daylight fits around our daily schedules.

That is the important distinction. Daylight saving does not create more daylight. It changes the relationship between the clock and the natural light outside.

For many people, the appeal is that summer evenings remain lighter for longer after work, making it easier to enjoy outdoor activities. The trade-off is that winter mornings are darker than they would be under a permanent summer-time arrangement.

Why do we want lighter evenings?

Imagine finishing work on a summer evening and stepping outside into sunshine. You could walk the dog, spend time in the garden, take the children to the park or sit outside with a drink without feeling that the day is already over.

Now imagine the same situation if the clocks had not moved forward in spring. The evening would become dark an hour earlier by the clock, potentially reducing the time available for outdoor activities after work or school.

That is the central argument in favour of British Summer Time.

Lighter evenings can make it easier for people to enjoy leisure time outdoors. They can benefit sports clubs, gardeners, walkers and businesses that rely on people being out and about after work.

There is also a social element. Long summer evenings are associated with barbecues, trips to the seaside, visits to friends and those spontaneous decisions to sit outside for another half an hour because the weather is too good to waste.

For a country that spends much of the year discussing rain, wind and grey skies, an extra stretch of evening daylight can feel like a genuine bonus.

It is hardly surprising that many people welcome the arrival of British Summer Time. It feels like a signal that winter is finally loosening its grip.

But what about those dark winter mornings?

The argument becomes rather less cheerful when autumn arrives.

As the clocks go back, the mornings become lighter according to the clock, but the evenings become darker earlier. For people who leave work late, the change can mean travelling home in darkness for much of the winter.

However, the morning benefit is important too. Keeping Greenwich Mean Time during winter means that sunrise occurs earlier than it would under permanent British Summer Time.

That matters for schoolchildren travelling to school, people walking or cycling to work and anyone who needs to be active outdoors early in the day.

If Britain kept British Summer Time throughout the winter, some parts of the country would experience very late winter sunrises. In northern Scotland, for example, daylight would arrive particularly late on the shortest days of the year.

That raises questions about road safety, visibility and the effect of darker mornings on people’s routines.

The debate is not simply about whether people prefer sunshine after work or before breakfast. It is about how the available daylight is distributed across a country with different latitudes, working patterns and lifestyles.

There is no arrangement that can give everyone the light they would ideally want at every point in the day.

The great British debate: should we stop changing the clocks?

The idea of ending the twice-yearly clock change has been debated for decades.

Supporters of abandoning the system argue that changing the clocks can disrupt sleep and daily routines. They also point out that many people find the transition inconvenient, particularly when they have to adjust their working hours, childcare arrangements or travel plans.

Some favour permanent British Summer Time, which would keep evenings lighter during winter at the expense of darker mornings. Others would prefer permanent Greenwich Mean Time, avoiding the spring and autumn changes but losing some of the lighter summer evenings that people enjoy.

Neither option is universally popular.

The UK has experimented with alternative arrangements before. Between 1968 and 1971, Britain observed British Standard Time throughout the year, keeping the clocks one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time during winter as well as summer.

The experiment generated considerable debate. Supporters valued the lighter evenings, while critics raised concerns about dark winter mornings, particularly in Scotland and northern parts of the country. The trial ended in 1971, and the familiar system of changing the clocks twice a year returned.

The experience demonstrated just how difficult it can be to find a solution that suits everyone.

For some people, lighter evenings are the priority. For others, getting children to school or travelling to work in daylight matters more.

And so the clocks continue to change.

Does changing the clocks really save energy?

One of the original arguments for daylight saving was that it could reduce the need for artificial lighting, saving fuel and energy.

That made particular sense during the First World War, when conserving resources was a serious concern.

Today, the picture is more complicated.

Modern homes and workplaces use energy for far more than lighting. Heating, cooling, appliances and electronic devices all contribute to consumption. The effect of shifting the clocks on overall energy use can vary depending on the climate, the way buildings are used and people’s behaviour.

Lighter evenings might reduce the need for lights in some homes, but darker mornings could mean lights are switched on for longer. Changes in heating and cooling demand may also affect the result.

Consequently, daylight saving is not a guaranteed way to achieve large energy savings under modern conditions.

The original argument remains part of the history of the system, but it is no longer the only consideration when deciding whether clock changes are worthwhile.

What about our body clocks?

There is another reason the twice-yearly change attracts criticism: our bodies do not necessarily adjust as neatly as the clocks on our phones.

Human beings have internal biological rhythms that help regulate sleep, alertness and other processes. Light is one of the most important signals influencing those rhythms.

When the clocks move forward in spring, the official time advances by an hour, but our bodies may need time to adapt. Some people find it harder to fall asleep or wake up at their usual time for several days.

The autumn change can also disturb routines, although the extra hour in bed is often welcomed.

People react differently. Some barely notice the transition, while others find it affects their sleep, concentration or general sense of wellbeing.

The shift can be particularly awkward for anyone already struggling with irregular working hours, early starts or disrupted sleep.

This is one reason some health experts favour avoiding abrupt clock changes. However, the effects of permanently adopting one time system rather than another would also depend on how that system aligned with daylight and people’s daily schedules.

It is not simply a matter of eliminating one inconvenient Sunday morning. The relationship between daylight, sleep and daily routines is more complicated than that.

The strange things we do twice a year

Whatever your view on daylight saving, the clock change has become a familiar British ritual.

There is the annual debate about which clocks will change automatically and which will require a manual adjustment. There is the inevitable discovery that the clock on the microwave has been wrong for six months. And there is always somebody who confidently announces that the clocks go forward in spring and back in autumn by remembering a phrase they learned at school.

Phones, computers and connected devices generally update themselves, but older appliances often do not. Cars can be particularly frustrating, with some clocks hidden behind menus that seem to require a qualification in electronics to adjust.

Then there is the question of the extra hour in October. Do you use it to catch up on sleep, enjoy a leisurely breakfast or get a few jobs done around the house? Or do you spend it looking at the clock and feeling oddly unsettled because the day seems to be lasting longer than expected?

The spring change is a different experience altogether. Losing an hour can make Sunday morning feel rather abrupt, especially if you have been looking forward to a lie-in.

For parents, the adjustment can be more complicated. Young children do not always understand why bedtime has apparently changed, and persuading them that it is time to sleep when their body clock disagrees can be an interesting exercise in patience.

Still, the twice-yearly ritual gives us something to talk about. In Britain, even a change to the time can become a national conversation.

Will Britain ever stop changing the clocks?

It is a reasonable question, particularly when so many other parts of modern life have become simpler and more automated.

The challenge is that ending clock changes would require a decision about which time Britain should follow throughout the year. That decision would affect people differently depending on where they live, when they work and how they use daylight.

The UK would also need to consider the practical implications for transport, business and coordination with neighbouring countries. The issue is not entirely domestic, because time arrangements affect travel and commercial activity across borders.

There have been political discussions about changing the system, but the familiar March and October adjustments remain in place.

For now, the easiest prediction is that the clocks will continue to change until the UK government decides there is sufficient reason and support to adopt a different arrangement.

In the meantime, we will carry on resetting the oven, checking the car and telling each other that the lighter evenings will be lovely once we get through the next few weeks.

So, are the clock changes worth it?

Perhaps the reason the debate never seems to disappear is that both sides have a point.

British Summer Time gives us lighter evenings during the months when many people most want to spend time outdoors. Greenwich Mean Time during winter provides earlier daylight for morning routines, particularly in the north of the country.

Changing the clocks allows Britain to adjust the balance between those two needs as the seasons change. But it also brings disruption, inconvenience and the occasional Sunday morning spent wondering why the day feels slightly out of step.

Whether the current system is still the best arrangement is a question worth asking. The world has changed considerably since Britain first introduced daylight saving in 1916, and the original reasons for the system are not necessarily the only ones that matter today.

Yet the seasonal change still has a certain familiarity. Spring brings the promise of lighter evenings, while autumn reminds us that winter is approaching.

For now, the clocks will keep moving, even if we continue to debate whether they should.

Now we want to hear from you. Would you prefer to keep changing the clocks twice a year, stay on British Summer Time all year or stick to Greenwich Mean Time permanently? Are lighter evenings more important to you, or would you rather have brighter winter mornings? And have you ever forgotten to change a clock and turned up an hour early or late for something important?